LAWS(NCD)-2006-7-23

PERCY FERNANDES Vs. B NITHYANANDA SHETTY

Decided On July 19, 2006
PERCY FERNANDES Appellant
V/S
B. NITHYANANDA SHETTY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by Mr. Percy Fernandes and Ors.-opposite parties against the order dated .2.2003 passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 9,56,549 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which, they should pay interest @ 24% per annum from that date till the date of payment with cost of Rs. 3,000.

(2.) The case of the complainant-respondents is that they had entered into an oral agreement with the opposite parties-appellants for construction of 3-bedroom apartment in the complex named 'Premier Daffodils', to be constructed at T.S. No. 746/7 in Bendore Ward of Kadri village at Mangalore city. The apartment was to be handed over to the complainants by 1st Mach, 1997. The complainants had paid a total sum of Rs. 5,90,000 to the appellants. The opposite parties-appellants had neither constructed the apartment nor refudned the money. Complainants sent notice dated 18.9.1999 demanding payment of Rs. 5,90,000 with interest @ 24% p.a. compounded quarterly. After the oral agreement they have failed to achieve the results. In reply dated 27.9.1999 the opposite parties-appellants agreed to pay the entire sum of R. 5,90,000 along with interest thereon. They had also refunded a sum of Rs. 4,30,000 upto 30.9.2000. On the date of filing complaint, a sum of Rs. 1,60,000 with interest @ 24% compounded interest was due as also the interest of Rs. 4,30,000 from 29.1.1996 to 13.9.2000 is due. The complainant-respondents were senior citizens, one aged about 82 years and other aged about 71 years, suffering from vaious ailments. Consequently, they required money for medical treatment and other expenses. Again, notice dated 26.6.2001 was issued demanding the unpaid amount with interest @ 24% compounded quarterly. Ultimately, they filed Complaint No. 198 of 2001 before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

(3.) The Commission issued notice to the respondent but they did not appear before the State Commission. The State Commission decided the matter ex parte as aforesaid.